Sorry buddy, it seems as though my powers of procrastination are working a little quicker than yours today!

Yes. Am I still your favourite Coach? Are you still having a kick?

If they can do it, it shows really good outside the box, big picture thinking. No single trade is made in isolation, they have all been building towards a plan.

Barrett says we get the best big man at pick 3 just to "please" Jesse Hogan in hopes he signs on.

The theory is to sign a CHF but I can't name anyone at pick 3 what a [censored].

Moderators please spare me T o$$er is not worthy of censorship.

Edited October 21, 201510 yr by Barney Rubble

Barrett says we get the best big man at pick 3 just to "please" Jesse Hogan in hopes he signs on.

lol Barrett is a clown

Why iot take the best mid who will deliver the ball to Jesse on a platter? I reckon that would please him too

Barrett says we get the best big man at pick 3 just to "please" Jesse Hogan in hopes he signs on.

What an insult to Dawes and Pedersen.

I deleted it, because Wiseblood beat me to it and mine was therefore superfluous.

Next time leave it cause I need to be told more than once!

What an insult to Dawes and Pedersen.

Well to Pedersen anyway

What an insult to Dawes and Pedersen.

Football industry trade & draft period is not meant to insult in terms of list management. It's about improvement with an eye for the future. Pinning your hopes on Dawes & Pederson, is a big risk.

Well that's the purple warrior at his ignorant best sorry mods but he is a To$$er. Golf or any other way you can get around it.

2 hours of wasted air space.

That is the best he can come up with. spare me.

Barrett says we get the best big man at pick 3 just to "please" Jesse Hogan in hopes he signs on.

But then he would ridicule us when a Parish/Curnow/Francis etc. started killing it and our "best key forward" is doing nothing.

The best two key position players are locked for picks 1 and 2. Why not get the best mid? idiot.

Barrett says we get the best big man at pick 3 just to "please" Jesse Hogan in hopes he signs on.

He may have networks that get him some "scoops" but the guy should stick to ambulance chasing and hiding in garbage cans like his mentor Hutchy, he doesn't have a clue or the credentials when it comes to analysing the game.

Warrior retrospectively 'Dee-bashing' over previous years trade activity.

In other news, water is still wet.

Was just thinking about GWS and their drafting. They have had the cream of draft picks and so many are gone or are on the way out.

Yet there is hardly a comment in the medya about them unlike the Dees that have copped it from pillar to post.

They have lost:

Pick 1

Boyd

pick 2

O'Rourke

pick 3

Plowman

tyson

Pick 12

Jaksch

Hoskin Elliot and Buntine look like busts and I can't be bothered going trough the rest of them but plenty are looking to leave....

Plough: MFC will be destination club in a couple of years.

If Melb. Was prepared to trade 6 for 3 &10 then 6 wasn't going to get what they wanted.

3 will get them Parish.

10 is tradeable because it won't get the tall they want.

Or the fish they want.

Barrett says we get the best big man at pick 3 just to "please" Jesse Hogan in hopes he signs on.

Barrett's a dumb firetruck

Edited October 21, 201510 yr by Demon Disciple

Warrior's 'sources' are sh!thouse.

Was just thinking about GWS and their drafting. They have had the cream of draft picks and so many are gone or are on the way out.

Yet there is hardly a comment in the medya about them unlike the Dees that have copped it from pillar to post.

They have lost:

Pick 1

Boyd

pick 2

O'Rourke

pick 3

Plowman

tyson

Pick 12

Jaksch

Hoskin Elliot and Buntine look like busts and I can't be bothered going trough the rest of them but plenty are looking to leave....

But they still have Scully!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Melb. Was prepared to trade 6 for 3 &10 then 6 wasn't going to get what they wanted.

3 will get them Parish.

10 is tradeable because it won't get the tall they want.

Or the fish they want.

WIth Essendon having 4 and 5, there was a big chance someone like Curnow may not get through to 6. Getting 3 may net Curnow.

WIth Essendon having 4 and 5, there was a big chance someone like Curnow may not get through to 6. Getting 3 may net Curnow.

It may be Curnow, it may be Parish, hell it may be Weideman. Either way, we have targeted a player at 3 and (Taylor) want him. That fills me with some comfort.

Would we do 3 and 10 for Bombers 4 and 5, losing possibly our first choice, but getting 2 of 3 best available?

Would Bombers do that to get the bloke they want?

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-10-21/we-wont-trade-picks-no3-no10-mahoney

Whoops!!!

GNF you're an absolute muppet. From all the un-eventuated cr@p you dribbled last trade period to the above opinion that directly contradicted what Mahoney said on the radio, i'd have more belief in a mail-box than the stuff you hear!

so you're suggesting that everything Mahoney has said this trade period has been truthful and eventually accurate?

Would we do 3 and 10 for Bombers 4 and 5, losing possibly our first choice, but getting 2 of 3 best available?

Would Bombers do that to get the bloke they want?

2 of Parish, Weideman & Curnow isn't bad, no matter which way you look at it.

I posted earlier that the man we want may not be Parish.

What if we know Bombers are desperate for Parish?

What if we let it be known we want Parish?

We then get pick 3.

We offer Parish and 10 to Bombers for 4 and 5.

Bombers get their man.

We get both of ours.

Good conspiracy theory or not?

so you're suggesting that everything Mahoney has said this trade period has been truthful and eventually accurate?

When trying to trade for the 'so-called player' GNF was alluding to, instead of taking the high picks to the draft.....................yes.